5 ms·

That's not the point of the article though.

PaulHoule 1y ago
Altman claimed superintelligence would revolutionize physics. This is one of many bullshit statements attributed to Altman, just one I feel qualified to counter. I could say plenty about software dev too.
- alganet 1y ago
  Lots of things were said about AI. I could take this sort of discussion to any subject I want. The article tries to put these personalities into a "master manipulator" figure. It doesn't matter if 99% of the text actually _criticizes_ these personalities. What matters is the takeaway a typical reader would get from reading it. It's in the lines of "they're not tech geniuses, they're manipulators". This takeaway is carefully designed to cater to selected audiences (well, the author claims to be a media trainer, so fair game, I guess). I think the intent is to actually _promote_ these personalities. I know it sounds contradictory, but as I said, it gives them too much credit for "being good manipulators". Which audiences are catered to and how they are expected to react is an exercise I'll leave for the reader. That's a general overview of what this article does. Nothing related to actual claims.
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    Yeah, it's like the way you have to ask leftists "What is your expectation for how many votes this post will move the next election D or R?" with the recognition that their radical posturing might really be something the Koch Organization should fund.
    - alganet 1y ago
      I don't understand your comparison.
      - PaulHoule 1y ago
        There's a theory that "the meaning of a communication is it's effect". If I make a message that I think is a left-wing message but it causes sufficient right-wing backlash to motivate opponents to oppose me, my message wasn't really a left-wing message but a right-wing message from that viewpoint -- one that benefits my enemies. Isn't that what you're saying here? The author pretty obviously thinks that Altman and company are horrible bullshitters and that's a bad thing, but you seem to think that somebody could come to the conclusion that they are actually really good bullshitters.
        alganet 1y ago
        My original comment included a political example, but I removed it before posting precisely to avoid confusion between what I said and simple polarization schemes. It's not about backlash. Media has several ways to deliver a different message, to different audiences, using a single piece. What I mean by "audiences" is much more granular than "against" or "in favor". The article attempts to do that (there are hints of this granularity of target profiles all over it), but it's not very subtle at doing it.

Altman claimed superintelligence would revolutionize physics. This is one of many bullshit statements attributed to Altman, just one I feel qualified to counter. I could say plenty about software dev too.

alganet 1y ago
Lots of things were said about AI. I could take this sort of discussion to any subject I want. The article tries to put these personalities into a "master manipulator" figure. It doesn't matter if 99% of the text actually _criticizes_ these personalities. What matters is the takeaway a typical reader would get from reading it. It's in the lines of "they're not tech geniuses, they're manipulators". This takeaway is carefully designed to cater to selected audiences (well, the author claims to be a media trainer, so fair game, I guess). I think the intent is to actually _promote_ these personalities. I know it sounds contradictory, but as I said, it gives them too much credit for "being good manipulators". Which audiences are catered to and how they are expected to react is an exercise I'll leave for the reader. That's a general overview of what this article does. Nothing related to actual claims.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  Yeah, it's like the way you have to ask leftists "What is your expectation for how many votes this post will move the next election D or R?" with the recognition that their radical posturing might really be something the Koch Organization should fund.
  - alganet 1y ago
    I don't understand your comparison.
    - PaulHoule 1y ago
      There's a theory that "the meaning of a communication is it's effect". If I make a message that I think is a left-wing message but it causes sufficient right-wing backlash to motivate opponents to oppose me, my message wasn't really a left-wing message but a right-wing message from that viewpoint -- one that benefits my enemies. Isn't that what you're saying here? The author pretty obviously thinks that Altman and company are horrible bullshitters and that's a bad thing, but you seem to think that somebody could come to the conclusion that they are actually really good bullshitters.
      - alganet 1y ago
        My original comment included a political example, but I removed it before posting precisely to avoid confusion between what I said and simple polarization schemes. It's not about backlash. Media has several ways to deliver a different message, to different audiences, using a single piece. What I mean by "audiences" is much more granular than "against" or "in favor". The article attempts to do that (there are hints of this granularity of target profiles all over it), but it's not very subtle at doing it.